14/10/2013 Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne at Peking University in Beijing. Friends of Johnson have sought to play down claims of a feud within the Conservatives amid suggestions the Mayor of London was the victim of a dirty tricks campaign at the hands of Osborne (Image: PA)

The plan was to listen to both sides of the argument - at length - and write a report explaining who was closer to the truth.

It turns out neither side was anywhere near the truth.

In its long awaited report, the Treasury Select committee accused Vote Leave, Stronger In and leading politicians on both sides of the argument of misleading the public, misrepresenting data and using "deeply problematic" tactics.

Here's a list of the most frequently used economic arguments for and against the EU, and why the Treasury Select Committee have decided they're absolute nonsense.

1. We sent £350m a week to the EU and if we left we could spend that on the NHS

(Image: PA)

Source: Vote Leave

Verdict: 'Highly misleading'

Vote Leave love this one so much they wrote it on the side of their campaign bus.

They've continued to use it on literature and at campaign events, despite the chair of the UK Statistics Authority describing it as "potentially misleading."

Today, he removed the "potentially" from that description.

And the committee went even further, calling it "highly misleading"

Here's why:

The number doesn't account for the budget rebate, which amounts to £85m a week. This money isn't freed up to spend on the NHS, because it isn't 'sent' to Brussels in the first place. It does not leave the UK.

As well as the rebate, the UK gets about £88m a week to the public sector and £79m a week to the private sector from the EU budget.

The Committee reckon the number is probably closer to £110m

It's possible that even if we leave the EU, we'll still have to pay them money to still get access to the single market.

They say:

"The public should discount this claim. Vote Leave’s persistence with it is deeply problematic. It sits very awkwardly with its promises to the Electoral Commission to work in a spirit that reflects its “very significant responsibility” and the “gravity of the choice facing the British people”

2. The cost of imports could rise by "at least" £11bn if we leave the EU

(Image: Getty Images)

Source: Stronger In

Verdict: Unhelpful and tendentious

Here's why:

It's based on the assumption that the UK, if it left the EU, would place the same tariffs on imports from other countries as the EU does.

Given that building up independent trade links with the world is one of the central planks of the Brexit argument, that doesn't seem likely, does it?

They say:

"[The figure] should not be used without extensive explanation"

3. The EU Common Agricultural Policy costs £400 per household

(Image: John Gladwin/Sunday Mirror)

Source: Leave campaigners

Verdict: Nope

Here's why:

For a start, the £400 figure is out of date. It's closer to £300

It only makes sense if the Government scrapped all tariffs if they left the EU

It also only makes sense if the Government scrapped all subsidies and support given to farmers

They say:

"It is true that the UK is effectively a net contributor to the CAP. It is widely acknowledged, even by Lord Rose, that the money currently distributed to UK farmers through the CAP could be spent more efficiently. Nonetheless, the overall saving would fall short– perhaps well short–of £300 per household."

4. 3m jobs depend on our membership of the European Union

Source: In campaigners

Verdict: Misleading

Here's why:

If you can't estimate how much trade would be lost, you can't estimate how many jobs would be lost

They say:

"The wider public might form the mistaken impression that all these jobs would be lost or at risk if the UK left the EU. Campaigners should be clear that 3 million jobs may be associated with, but would not necessarily be dependent on, our membership of the EU.

5. Complying with the top 100 most burdensome EU regulations costs firms £600m a week

(Image: PA)

Source: Vote Leave and Leave.EU

Verdict: Misleading

Here's why:

It misrepresents the research it's based on

They say:

"To persist with such a claim, as both Vote Leave and Leave.eu have done, is a tendentious representation of the research on which it is based."

6. Families would be £4,300/£3,000 worse off after Brexit

(Image: Getty)

Source: George Osborne/HM Treasury (£4,300) and Stronger In (£3,000)

Verdict: A misrepresentation of the data

This was the first big Treasury study on the long-term impact of Brexit .

These numbers are only useful if the alternative situation is fully spelled out - explaining what conditions are being used to get to the figure. Stronger In didn't provide that at all

Osborne used it in the foreword to his report, but it didn't properly represent the research it was attached to

The number's based on the UK's GDP divided by the number of households

The effect on household disposable income would be much lower

They say:

To persist with this claim would be to misrepresent the Treasury’s own work... Neither Government Departments nor other spokespeople for the remain side should repeat the mistaken assertion that household disposable income would be £4,300 lower than if we were to remain in the EU; the £4,300 figure refers to GDP per household...It is disappointing that the Treasury and the Chancellor place so much emphasis on a single figure (£4,300). Any single number that purports to encapsulate the effects of Brexit can be misunderstood, all the more so if it is used–as this number has been on occasion–unqualified by detailed explanation."

poll loading

Would you rather campaigners just admitted they don't know what's going to happen once in a while?